Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kamal K. Sahasrabuddhe Vs. Controller of Accommodation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR641; 2008(1)BomCR779
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging an order dated 22nd December 2006 confirming the order passed by the Controller of Accommodation, Mumbai dated 12th December 2005 in respect of the premises bearing Room No. 32, Second Floor, Gopal Bhuvan, Khed Galli, Kaka Saheb Gadgil Marg, Dadar, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Requisitioned Premises).2. The facts necessary to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner are these. Petitioner's husband Krishnaji was allotted requisitioned premises in the year 1954 vide allotment Order No. R-9/117-B/ Gopal Bhuvan dated 2nd May, 1954. He retired in the year 1982 and subsequently expired on 20th May, 1997.3. It is the case of petitioner that she resides in the requisitioned premises with her son, daughter in law and grand daughter. They do not have any other place of residence. It is their case that they have been paying rent to the first respondent which in turn was ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shield Security Force
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR215
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal dt.29.7.05, which set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The issue involved in this case is that the respondents are providing security services. There the services provided by the respondents are liable to service tax. The respondents took the registration certificate and failed to pay the service tax for the period 16.10.1998 to 31.12.2001 and from 1.01.2002 to 31.10.2003. The adjudicating authority held that the respondents are liable to pay service tax and imposed penalties under Section 75A, 76, 77 & 78. On an appeal Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of the service tax, penalties under Section 75A, 76 & 77 but set aside the penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence Revenue is in appeal against such setting aside of the penalty by the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals).3. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC398
2. The appellants companies have obtained the necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue these appeals before the Tribunal.3. As the appellants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of the pre-deposit on the basis of precedent decisions of the Tribunal, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to decide the appeals with the consent of both sides.4. In the impugned order duty demand has been confirmed in respect of Base Transceiver Station (BTS) and Base Station Controller (BSC) inclusive of all equipments. According to the learned advocate these goods were imported on payment of duty and merely assembled at site.5. We find that in the case of ITI Limited itself the Tribunal has held vide ITI Limited v. CCE, Navi Mumbai 2007 (211) ELT 132 that the BTS and BSC though can be dismantled and re-assembled they are not as such marketable. Similar view has also been taken in the case of BPL Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner 2006 (108) ELT 226. The l...
Santosh S/o. Vyankat Nirude Vs. the State of Maharashtra, through It's ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR734; 2007(5)BomCR111; (2007)109BOMLR1340
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23.4.2007 passed by respondent No. 2, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad and sought a declaration that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe.3. Respondents 3 and 4 are the Collector, Latur and the Headmaster of the School in which the petitioner is employed, respectively.4. As we intend remanding the matter it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail.5. The impugned order refers to various documents including the admission registration extracts of the applicant's relatives. Details thereof are tabulated in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. The important aspect is in respect of the petitioner's father. In the admission registration extract of 8.8.1959 he is referred to as Hindu Koli. The factor certainly is against the petitioner.6. Pausing here it must be noted that while tabulating the particulars in the remarks column against ea...
Shri Vyas Ramakrishna Prabhu Lawande Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR885
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Civil Misc. Application No. 56/05 in Land Acquisition Case No. 5/90. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has rejected the petitioner's application, claiming interest on solatium and amount deducted towards tax.3. At the outset, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not press the demand in respect of the deduction towards tax. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been granted interest on solatium in respect of the award as enhanced by the Reference Court on 24.09.96 granting compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq.m. in respect of acquisition of an area of 32,930 sq. metres of the property situated at Morlem village in Satari taluka. The petitioner's claim for interest on solatium is b...
Madhukar Rajanna Darbhe Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR339; 2008(2)BomCR418
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Both Writ Petitions are filed by original defendants in two different civil suits instituted by present Respondent No. 3 for possession of property on the ground that his father Rajanna has left 'Will' dated 28/2/1980 bequeathing the same in his favour. Both Petitioners are real brothers of Respondent No. 3. Petitioners filed applications at exhibit 44 in Regular Civil Suit No. 814/1994 (Laxmanrao v. Venkat) and at exhibit 56 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 3340/2001 (Laxmanrao v. Madhukar) raising preliminary objection that unless and until Will was probated, Civil Suits were not maintainable. By common order dated 28/3/2003, 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, has rejected that contention and applications filed by Petitioners in these Suits. This common order has been challenged in these 2 Writ Petitions on the ground that provisions of Section 57(a) and (b) of Indian Succession Act, 1925, violate Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India with ...
Hindustan Composites Limited (Formerly Known as Hindustan Ferodo Ltd.) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR244; 2008(1)BomCR504; [2007(115)FLR19]
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents.2. By this petition, the petitioner -Hindustan Composites Limited takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra in Complaint (ULP) No.1166/1991 dated 19th April, 2004 whereby the Industrial Court was pleased to direct the petitioner herein to pay amount of unpaid wages at the rate of 1200/-per month to each of the employees named in the complaint at Annexure B' with effect from 1.6.91 to 30.11.91.FACTS:3. The petitioner is a public limited company and is carrying on manufacturing activity in its factory at Ghatkopar, Mumbai. In the year 1991, the factory had 1300 workers. The factory was under lock out from 18.10.90 to 14.5.91. A settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the recognised union on 14.5.91. From 29.8.91, the respondent no.1 filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.1166/91 against the petitioner and respondent no.2 seeking relief of ...
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tumsar, Through Its Chairma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR59
ORDERB.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to the Scheme for agricultural insurance popularly known as 'Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojna' or 'National Agricultural Insurance Scheme' and relief sought is of direction to Respondent No. 1 -State of Maharashtra to modify the policy and government resolution in relation to its implementation by allowing representatives of Petitioners No. 1 and 2 in crop cutting experiment with direction that such experiments should be conducted with previous public notice thereof in all affected/concerned villages. Further relief sought is of deletion of criteria of placing threshold income which forms its basis at percentage lower than hundred percent be deleted and instead hundred percent income be considered for the purpose of calculating compensation. Petitioner is also seeking declaration that agriculturists should be allowed to institute their claims with insurance company which it should...
Suleman Abbas S/O Chiragali Hydary Vs. Pramod S/O Nandlal Yadav,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Bom7; 2007(5)ALLMR255; 2008(1)BomCR887
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. As issue involved in this Letters Patent Appeal is found to be squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, We have heard parties finally with their consent by making Rule returnable forthwith. We have accordingly heard Advocate P.B. Patil for the Appellant, Shri K.B. Ambilwade, Advocate for Respondent No. 1, Shri A.M. Quazi, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and Smt. Wasnik, learned AGP for Respondent No. 3. 2. Challenge in this LPA is to the order dated 17/4/2007 passed by Learned Single Judge admitting Writ Petition No. 1216/2007 filed by Respondent No. 1 for final hearing and granting him interim relief whereby order passed by the Collector Nagpur on 28/2/2007 in Case No. 2 of 2007 disqualifying him in view of provisions of Section 16(1)(k) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as Municipal Act) on the ground that he has more than two children has been stayed. Said provision reads...
Ranjana Gopalrao Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3866; I(2008)DMC279; 2007(5)MhLj425
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule, heard finally with consent of parties.2. The revision is filed by accused Smt. Ranjana Thorat, since her application for discharge was rejected by Sessions Judge, Akola.3. A few facts as can be gathered from F.I.R. may be stated thus.One Padma was married to accused Baburao Charhate. She has two issues born out of wed-lock. She was being ill-treated by the husband Baburao and his relatives, named in the F.I.R. She had, therefore, lodged a report at Police Station, Hiwarkhed against them. Due to intervention of relatives and for her children she agreed to resume cohabitation with her husband Baburao. In the meanwhile, accused Baburao - the husband - developed physical relationship with the present applicant Ranjana and Baburao went to live with her at Malpura. Ranjana too has two children born from Baburao. Padma, the first wife, was initially kept at Godhi but later she also shifted to Malpura and was living with Baburao, his relatives and Ranjana, the presen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »